Pa. scores well on emergency readiness
Share with others:
Pennsylvania scored 8 out of 10 on a national report released Tuesday about public health emergency preparedness, in the middle range of the report's ranking of states.
A University of Pittsburgh professor and Pennsylvania's health secretary questioned the study's measurements, though, noting that the criteria used may or may not predict readiness.
"We're going to be respectful of the report, but it is what it is," said Michael Huff, acting secretary of the state Department of Health. "It's a snapshot in time, and it could all depend on the indicators they use."
"A better way to look at this would be, how did the state do during the H1N1 pandemic," said Samuel Stebbins, director of Pitt's Center for Public Health Preparedness, referring to last year's swine flu. "That's the question you want to ask, because that was an actual disaster."
The annual report, compiled by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, evaluated how prepared states are for public health emergencies, such as a biological terrorism attack or an outbreak of waterborne disease.
Three states received perfect scores: Arkansas, North Dakota and Washington. Eleven states received a score of 9 out of 10, and 18 received a score of 8. No state received a score lower than a 5.
Titled "Ready or Not? Protecting the Public's Health from Diseases, Disasters and Bioterrorism," this was the eighth such report by the nonprofit.
This year, it documented cuts to public health funding in more than 30 states. Federal funds were cut by 27 percent, the report said.
"I think it's a terrible shame, but it is a reflection of the very tough economy that we're in right now," said Eric Toner, a senior associate at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Center for Biosecurity.
To evaluate states, the report identified 10 indicators, such as whether a state can electronically exchange information with health care providers.
Pennsylvania lost two points, one for decreasing state funding and one for an insufficient ability to rapidly detect and report food-borne diseases. Mr. Huff questioned both penalties.
"There is no state health officer in this country who would say they couldn't use more funding," he said.
The foodborne illness score was based on a survey done several years ago, Mr. Huff said. Since then, the department has increased staffing and created a better laboratory information management system, he said.
"My complement of staff was not as great as it is now," he said.
Nationally, the report documents across-the-board improvements since 2005, when an 8 was the highest score issued.
"That's the most important thing to me in this report," said Dr. Toner. "The efforts and money that have been spent on preparedness over the years have achieved real objective improvement."
Dr. Stebbins and Mr. Huff questioned the report's criteria, though, noting that they change from year to year -- making comparisons difficult -- and operate on a pass/fail basis, potentially obscuring nuances.
Since 2005, only six states have landed at the top of the rankings more than once.
First Published December 15, 2010 12:00 am
